map3k1 is required for spatial restriction of progenitor differentiation in planarians

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors assess the role of map3k1 in adult Planaria through whole body RNAi for various periods of time. The authors' prior work has shown that neoblasts (stem cells that can regenerate the entire body) for various tissues are intermingled in the body. Neoblasts divide to produce progenitors that migrate within a "target zone" to the "differentiated target tissues" where they differentiate into a specific cell type. Here the authors show that map3k1-i animals have ectopic eyes that form along the "normal" migration path of eye progenitors (Fig. 1), ectopic neurons and glands along the AP axis (Fig. 2) and pharynx in ectopic anterior positions (Fig. 3). The rest of the study show that positional information is largely unaffected by loss of map3k1 (Fig. 4,5). However, loss of map3k1 leads to premature differentiated of progenitors along their normal migratory route (Fig. 6). They also show that an ill-defined "long-term" whole body depletion of map3k1 results in mis-specified organs and teratomas.

Strengths:

(1) The study has appropriate controls, sample sizes and statistics.
(2) The work appears to be high-quality.
(3) The conclusions are supported by the data.
(4) Planaria is a good system to analyze the function of map3k1, which exists in mammals but not in other invertebrates.

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper is largely descriptive with no mechanistic insights.
(2) Given the severe phenotypes of long-term depletion of map3k1, it is important that this exact timepoint is provided in the methods, figures, figure legends and results.
(3) Fig. 1C, the ectopic eyes are difficult to see, please add arrows.
(4) line 217 - why does the n=2/12 animals not match the values in Fig. 3B, which is 11/12 and 12/12. The numbers don't add up. Please correct/explain.
(5) Figure panels do not match what is written in the results section. There is no Fig. 6E. Please correct.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:
The flatworm planarian Schmidtea mediterranea is an excellent model for understanding cell fate specification during tissue regeneration and adult tissue maintenance. Planarian stem cells, known as neoblasts, are continuously deployed to support cellular turnover and repair tissues damaged or lost due to injury. This reparative process requires great precision to recognize the location, timing, and cellular fate of a defined number of neoblast progeny. Understanding the molecular mechanisms driving this process could have important implications for regenerative medicine and enhance our understanding of how form and function are maintained in long-lived organisms such as humans. Unfortunately, the molecular basis guiding cell fate and differentiation remains poorly understood.

In this manuscript, Canales et al. identified the role of the map3k1 gene in mediating the differentiation of progenitor cells at the proper target tissue. The map3k1 function in planarians appears evolutionarily conserved as it has been implicated in regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, and cell death in mammals. The results show that the downregulation of map3k1 with RNAi leads to spatial patterning defects in different tissue types, including the eye, pharynx, and the nervous system. Intriguingly, long-term map3k1-RNAi resulted in ectopic outgrowths consistent with teratomas in planarians. The findings suggest that map3k1 mediates signaling, regulating the timing and location of cellular progenitors to maintain correct patterning during adult tissue maintenance.

Strengths:

The authors provide an entry point to understanding molecular mechanisms regulating progenitor cell differentiation and patterning during adult tissue maintenance.

The diverse set of approaches and methods applied to characterize map3k1 function strengthens the case for conserved evolutionary mechanisms in a selected number of tissue types. The creativity using transplantation experiments is commendable, and the findings with the teratoma phenotype are intriguing and worth characterizing.

Weaknesses:

The article presents a provocative idea related to the importance of positional control for organs and cells, which is at least in part regulated by map3k1. Nonetheless, the role of map3k1 or its potential interaction with regulators of the anterior-posterior, mediolateral axes, and PCGs is somewhat superficial. The authors could elaborate or even speculate more in the discussion section and the different scenarios incorporating these axial modulators into the map3k1 model presented in Figure 8.

The article can be improved by addressing inconsistencies and adding details to the results, including the main figures and supplements. This represents one of the most significant weaknesses of this otherwise intriguing manuscript. Below are some examples of a few figures, but the authors are expected to pay close attention to the remaining figures in the paper.

Details associated with the number of animals per experiment, statistical methods used, and detailed descriptions of figures appear inconsistent or lacking in almost all figures. In some instances, the percentage of animals affected by the phenotype is shown without detailing the number of animals in the experiment or the number of repeats. Figures and their legends throughout the paper lack details on what is represented and sometimes are mislabeled or unrelated. Specifically, the arrows in Figure 1A are different colors. Still, no reasoning is given for this, and in the exact figure, the top side (1A) shows the percentages and the number of animals below. Conversely, in Figures 1B, C, and D, no details on the number of animals or percentages are shown, nor an explanation of why opsin was used in Figure 1A but not 1B. Is Figure 1B missing an image for the respective control? Figure 1C needs details regarding what the two smaller boxes underneath are. Figure 1C could use an AP labeling map in 10 days (e.g., AP6 has one optic cup present). Figure 1C and F counts do not match. In Figure 1C, we do not know the number of animals tested, controls used, the scale bar sizes in the first two images, nor the degree of magnification used despite the pharynx region appearing magnified in the second image. Figure 1C is also shown out of chronological order; 36 days post RNAi is shown before 10 days post RNAi. Moreover, the legends for Figures 1C and 1D are swapped.

Additionally, Figure 1F and many other figures throughout the paper lack overall statistical considerations. Furthermore, Figure 1F has three components, but only one is labeled. Labeling each of them individually and describing them in the corresponding figure legend may be more appropriate.

Figure 2C shows images of gene expression for two genes, but the counts are shown for only one in Figure 2D. It is challenging to follow the author's conclusions without apparent reasoning and by only displaying quantitative considerations for one case but not the other. These inconsistencies are also observed in different figures. In Figure 2D, 24/24 animals were reported to show the phenotype, but only eight were counted (is there a reason for this?). In Figure 2E, the expression for three genes is shown, with some displaying anterior and posterior regions while others only show the anterior picture. Is there a particular reason for this? Also, in Figure 2F, the counts are shown for only the posterior region of two genes out of the three displayed in Figure 2E. It is unclear why the authors do not show counts for the anterior areas considered in Figure 2E. Furthermore, the legend for Figure 2D is missing, and the legend for 2F is mislabeled as a description for Figure 2D.

Supplement Figure 1 B reports data up to 6 weeks, but no text in the manuscript or supplement mentions any experiment going up to 6 weeks. There are no statistics for data in Supplement Figure 1E. Any significance between groups is unclear.